The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will decide two major gay marriage cases next year that could have a sweeping impact on the rights of same-sex couples to wed. The cases, which likely won't be decided until June, mark the first time the justices will consider arguments for and against same-sex marriage.

The court will review California's gay marriage ban, which passed in a 2008 ballot initiative months after the California's high court had legalized same sex unions and thousands of gay Californians had already tied the knot. Two federal courts have struck down Prop. 8 as discriminatory, leaving the Supreme Court to render a final judgment.

The justices will also hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed under President Bill Clinton that prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Windsor v. United States was brought by Edith Windsor, a resident of New York who paid $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died because the federal government did not recognize their marriage. New York is one of nine states (and the District of Columbia) where gay marriage is legal, so Windsor argues that the federal government is discriminating against her by not recognizing her state-sanctioned marriage.

The Obama administration decided last year to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, so Congress has hired outside counsel to argue on behalf of the law. Recently, two federal appeals courts had struck down the law as unconstitutional, virtually requiring the Supreme Court to take the case to settle the dispute between the courts and Congress.

Few legal experts expect the court to deliver a sweeping ruling that would decide whether or not all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, have a fundamental right to marry. In the DOMA case, it's more likely they will narrowly decide whether the federal government has a legitimate interest in invalidating certain states' definition of marriage, given that marriage has traditionally been a state domain. In the Prop 8 case, justices may decide whether a ban on gay marriage is legal in the specific case of California, where gay couples were allowed to marry for several months before the ban passed.

For both cases, court-watchers will have their eyes trained firmly on swing justice Anthony Kennedy, who has a record of ruling in favor of gay rights. In 2003, Kennedy wrote the Court's opinion in Lawrence v Texas, a landmark decision that said the government cannot outlaw anal sex between consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation. ("The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons," he wrote.) Kennedy also cast the deciding vote striking down a Colorado law that would have prevented local governments from passing laws specifically protecting gay and lesbian civil rights.

Because of Kennedy's history on the issue, many legal experts think there's a good chance the court will strike down DOMA, with Kennedy joining the court's four liberals for the decision. But the workings of the Supreme Court are notoriously hard to predict, and it's still a complete mystery what the nine justices will decide next June.

The fact that this is still a thing in this country is laughable. Who cares if same sex couples want to be married? Just let them do it. Can we focus tax dollars on other, more important things that would actually have a meaningful impact on the population as a whole, and not just a small percentage of the population?

I'm still waiting to hear a valid, non-religious reason for why same sex marriage should be illegal.

It would be nice if gay marriage were established as a constitutional right, so various folks on the right (many of whom have many other good ideas and are well intentioned) can have one less thing to be stupid about.

That's the most common one. They usually throw in adults marrying children to make sure homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.

I've also heard some of them say that allowing gay marriage violates their religious liberties. Because if two men can get married that goes against their personal beliefs so they should be denied that right in the interest of the religious person keeping theirs.

It just shows how backwards our country is and how there really never was any 'seperation of church and state' in the first place if we deem marriage as only an association with religion anyways...Anyone should be able to marry another person they love regardless of their sex. People really shouldn't care that much about what other people do anyways.

It is also true what you hear about people who are homophobic and hate gays. They really are deep down most likely battling their own issues with trying to figure out what team to bat for and it's just all to perplexing...